Re: [http-state] Minor things concerning draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-01

Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> Tue, 12 January 2010 11:44 UTC

Return-Path: <ian@hixie.ch>
X-Original-To: http-state@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: http-state@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7253A6900 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:44:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PQzZLWpe8CfQ for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:44:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from looneymail-a2.g.dreamhost.com (caibbdcaaaaf.dreamhost.com [208.113.200.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52E053A67FF for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:44:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hixie.dreamhostps.com (hixie.dreamhost.com [208.113.210.27]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by looneymail-a2.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3046616D3D2; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:44:05 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:44:04 +0000
From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
In-Reply-To: <7789133a1001120300w5c027595xabe2c82e1e95fc66@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.1001121142280.17804@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
References: <4B476F1E.7080003@KingsMountain.com> <7789133a1001080950s24c1df4fg742546be69f657ee@mail.gmail.com> <4B4C48C2.8020209@jondos.de> <7789133a1001120234i727449c3s69fb6691eae77cea@mail.gmail.com> <4B4C54F6.3060307@jondos.de> <7789133a1001120300w5c027595xabe2c82e1e95fc66@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-GB-hixie
Content-Style-Type: text/css
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="1909464018-1889093394-1263296644=:17804"
Cc: IETF httpstate WG <http-state@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] Minor things concerning draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-01
X-BeenThere: http-state@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discuss HTTP State Management Mechanism <http-state.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state>, <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/http-state>
List-Post: <mailto:http-state@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state>, <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:44:08 -0000

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Georg Koppen <g.koppen@jondos.de> wrote:
> >>> 5) Section 5 says that there are some algorithms specified for some
> >>> tasks concerning the cookie protocol but the user agents do not have to
> >>> follow these ("user agents are free to implement the cookie
> >>> protocol..."). But, for instance in Section 5.1.1., there it says "The
> >>> user agent MUST use the following algorithm..." Thus, am I free to
> >>> implement it differently or not? It's a bit confusing...
> >>
> >> The operative requirement is:
> >>
> >>       <t>Although some parts of the cookie protocol are specified
> >>       algorithmically, user agents are free to implement the cookie protocol
> >>       in any manner as long as their resultant behavior is "black-box"
> >>       indistinguishable from a user agent that implements the protocol as
> >>       described.</t>
> >>
> >> Is there some way we can be clearer that user agents are free to
> >> implement the protocol however they like?
> >
> > Why MUST the user use these algorithms? Wouldn't it be enough if the
> > user MAY use them? I mean, they are free to implement the protocol
> > however they want to do it, provided they come to the same results.
> 
> The goal is to require that they come up with the same results.  I
> guess we could say something more elaborate each time.  It just seems
> a bit wordy.  Any suggestions for text to use?

HTML5 uses:

# Conformance requirements phrased as algorithms or specific steps may be 
# implemented in any manner, so long as the end result is equivalent. (In 
# particular, the algorithms defined in this specification are intended to 
# be easy to follow, and not intended to be performant.)

 -- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'